PARLIAMENT— Step To. Nationalisation Of Land Is Charge

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 October 1948, Page 3

PARLIAMENT— Step To. Nationalisation Of Land Is Charge

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 7.

The Land Valuation Court Bill was vigorously attacked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland)' when the second reading debate began in the House of Representatives this evening. He saw it as a step -towards nationalisation of the land and objected to the powers to be given members of the court holding office at the pleasure of the Minister. Both in Mr Holland’s speech and in Opposition interjections there were references to the Lewis case, in which the chairman of a Land Sales Committee was dismissed. Mr Holland also claimed that the Land Sales Act was not working properly. Moving the second reading, the Minister of Lands (Mr C. F. Skinner) said he thought no person would quibble at the Bill’s objective to provide for greater uniformity in land valuations for various purposes. The Minister said the New Zealand Institute of Valuers had discussed with him on several occasions since 1945 the desirability of setting up a central valuation court. There had been an improvement in land valuation procedure since the Land Sales Act was passed, and this Bill furthered the process, said the Minister.

Work of Land Sales Court

Mr Skinner said members of the Land Sales Court and of the land sales committees were more experienced in this type of work than any other type of court.which had dealt with valuation cases in the past. Mr W. S. Goosman. (Opposition, Piako): That’s a good bed-time story. Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga): The one man who dared to be impartial was sacked. The Minister said he hoped and believed that the new court would be just as important to the community as was the Supreme Court. The legislation provided that the present judge of the Land Valuation Court and his status would be that of a Supreme Court judge. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo): Will he have to carry out the Government policy? The Minister: Government policy is written into the Bill, but it will be impossible for the Government to give any direction to the court, just as it has never been possible for the Government to give any direction to the Land Sales Court. Opposition Attacks Bill Mr Holland described the Bill as another link in the chain of ultimate socialism. He considered that the use of the title and status of a Supreme Court judge was being seriously overdone. The Government was far too fond of making capital out of the fine reputation of tjie Supreme Court. The designation “court” should be reserved for the courts, and the title of “judge” for judges in the real sense of the word, and not for those who were at the head of the Waterfront Industry Commission and the Local Government Commission. The Minister had said he would do his best to have the court proposed in the Bill elevated to the highest standing. That came well from the Minister who listened to the disgruntled tittle tattle of departmental officers and dismissed a man who was chairman of a land sales committee.

Link in Chain of Socialisation

Mr Holland said he agreed that the Bill would achieve a measure of uniformity in land valuation appeal procedure,, but it could more properly be called the “Property Control Bill,” because it was the objective of the Government to socialise the means of production, distribution, and exchange. The Bill was a link in the chain of socialisation. Uniformity was not desirable if fundamental rights and principles were to be destroyed. . Mr Holland said the provisions of the present Land Sales Act, based on 1942 values, were wrong in principle. The National Party policy was that a vendor had the right to replacement value of the land he S °Mr P. Kearins (Government, Waimarino): What about in five yeais time? . • Mr Holland said the Opposition agreed that returned servicemen should not have to pay for the appreciation of land values during the war, but neither should a vendor have to bear the brunt. It should have been borne by the State. Cost Of Replacement Wages had risen by about 28 per cent, since 1942, and those who sold nroperties today should not have then purchasing power reduced by 28 per cent, through being limited to 1942 values. Vendors should receive replacement values less appropriate denreciation for the age of their properties The present legislation was keeping’ hundreds of properties off the market Most owners of houses and other property were not the greedy graspers or money-grabbers that the Government speakers sometimes depicted them to be. They were decent citizens entitled to decent treatment. Laws governing property transfers should be fair to all sections of the community and must give freedom for desirable transactions. There must be provision against aggregation, but there must be laws which would enjoy public respect and not as at present laws which were repeatedly flouted because the people felt the laws were unjust. Mr Holland said the Bill provided for the appointment of two additional judges at the Minister’s pleasure. These judges if appointed, and the laymen who would sit with the judge on all cases were subject to the Minister’s wishes. How could the Court be free of political influence in such circumstances? Members of the Court would hold office at the Minister’s pleasure—or else. Would it be denied that the Government’s policy was land nationalisation? asked Mr Holland. Mr Skinner: I deny it. Mr Holland said that in spite of the Minister’s denial it had been clearly stated in former years by the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and by Mr Savage that the Labour Party aimed at the nationalisation of land. That policy had never been repudiated. What was termed a Court would m fact be another Government department obliged to obey the Government’s dictates, said Mr Holland. Mr Holland said the Government’s policy was first to have all land valued, preferably by valuers in Government employ. He believed that ultimately the Government would pass legislation preventing any sales of land except to the State. Reference To Lewis Case

The National Party objected to any kind of Court which was “getatable” by the Minister, who might remove appointees simply because he did not like them, said Mr Holland. Thank goodness, there had been a Parliament at the time of the Lewis case to defend

the honour of a man so cruelly dismissed. Mr Osborne: There was a Parliament last night, too. Mr Holland: Yes, there was a Parliament last night, and we showed we are not going to be pushed around in this Parliament either. We will fight here for the principles of British justice on every occasion. ' .

.Mr Baxter said he considered 90 per cent, of the contracts drawn up today for the sale of land included a clause: “Subject to Land Sales Court values.” In spite of criticism and sabotage of the Government by its political opponents, the people had faith in Land Sales Courts’ values. Mr Watts: One in 10,000 that's all. Mr Baxter said that no Bill had ever been brought down which would be appreciated more by landowners. Hit and miss methods of arriving at a valuation would be eliminated and the Bill would help the Government retain office in 1949.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment.